Are they just going to exist until you find a legendary to replace it?

More or less, this. It depends on what the final drop rates are like - I am sure they are much higher in the beta than they will be for release.

But ultimately in D3, damage is king, so no matter what novelties they put on legendaries, if they don't do the most damage, nobody will wear them.

I am interested to see how the 'primary' and 'secondary' stats work out. Theoretically, you could have a blue and a yellow have similar 'primary' stats, and then it's just the secondary stats that differentiate them. As I said though, orange will always be best.

So far this does seem to be the only use for a rare, as something to fill the slot till you get a leg. The roles look the same on legs and rare with the leg having that extra "use".

Streamers are already not picking up rare items (or only to craft) so I am wondering why they have become the new magic items pointless. Instead of having white, blue, yellow, gold (not gold any more) items to use we now just have the legs, not quite getting how this improves choice and build diversity.

Again we have to look at d2 where rare items could role higher for some things making them still viable for certain slots.

So far undecided about primary and secondary stats.

For me each item type white, blue, yellow, gold should have an area that it does best to make them all usable for somthing.

Something like

White = more socs

Blue = higher dammage

yellow = higher stats like crit ias

gold = jazzy stuff to allow new builds

Yes some of the legs are nice but otherwise items have bigger numbers in RoS that's about it.

I hope as Blizzard balances the game more and more Rares also get a buff. There should always be a chance that you find a really awesome BiS Rare. Imo its a complete fail that Rares are only cool for materials then they get completely avoided.

Unless the best items in the game are bound to account it's pointless having a bind mechanic as the market will stil exist, so for the BoA mechanic to work either Blizz need to go the whole hog and bind rares too or rares need to be second tier items and basically vendor trash.

I think the thing is that with loot 2.0 they're trying to make the legendary affixes really game-changing. For that to be a success you just can't have rares be far better than legendaries stat-wise (which it would take for you to even consider them right now), because rares aren't playstyle-defining. They're just huge stat boosts. As it is right now I'm pretty sure there only exists very few BiS rares for some specific builds.

The fix to this as i see it would be to implement some rare-only affixes. Maybe it could be something somewhat like what we see on the new legendaries, just not quite as OP, but still something that might make your character better for specific builds. I do realize that you can already roll %damage to a skill, but it seems that it just isn't enough to match the legendaries atm.

Example of implementation: You get a legendary with an affix that really makes you want to use arcane orb as your main ressource spender. There's still a lot of crazy legendarys you could use, but none of them directly affects arcane orb. That's where rares come in. If they all had a chance to have a skill-specific stat, you could have a character with like 2 or 3 cool legendaries that supports a specific build, but have the rest of your items be those well-rolled rares which gives some kind of boost to your spell.

This way you would have more of a long term goal for your character without nerfing legendary drop-rate to the ground. At first you might be all decked out in legendaries after a month or so in RoS, but after that you'll still have the possibility of swapping some of those legendaries with those new kinds of rares, which would probably be pretty hard to come by if they all have to match your build.

When D3 launched, Legendaries had nothing on rares, except some "unique affixes" on specific slots (like movespeed on an amulet, or very little crit dmg on a belt).

Then they reworked some of those to have much better "base stats" and sometimes a shitload more potential. But it's amazing (and kinda sad) how the devs can't seem to find a good middle ground.

I like the idea of Legendaries having better "base stats", but Rares having more potential. For instance, a Legendary can roll up to 3 primary affixes and 2 secondaries, while a Rare can roll up to 4 primary affixes and 4 secondaries; something along those lines.

1 extra primary affix (or 2 extra secondaries) wouldn't make it that much powerful stat wise. I just like the current 50/50 state of D3 (where some rares and crafted items have their own role/niche).

Unless the best items in the game are bound to account it's pointless having a bind mechanic as the market will stil exist, so for the BoA mechanic to work either Blizz need to go the whole hog and bind rares too or rares need to be second tier items and basically vendor trash.

Interesting point, I am hoping they will add some trading back in but that's another topic.

Again d2 has a nice anser to the way crafted stats were done, not mass stats gains but they could role more ll fcr etc. So for d3 a rare could have a small chance to role 11 ias on a ring or 8 crit while legs can role same as now max 9 ias and 6 crit. It's not a massive diffrence but for some slots could make rares a better option.

Zero that's also a good example do I go for the rare that can role 7 stats or leg with 6 and some random "game changer".

The way I see it we have some crazy builds right now but there all getting nerfd and blizz is making possible new crazy builds instead. What is the diffrence appart form them saying it's not how they were sposed to be played and now (because they designed them) they are?

If those new affixes on legendaries are really that game changing, you dont need one of them on every slot. One leg with one game changing affix should be enugh. Rest of the slots can still be filled with the items with most stats as long as you have your game changer affix.

The way it was in d2. Rares have the potential to roll better stats than legendaries, but can not roll those gamechanger affixes.

This needs to be balanced really well though.

1 : those affixes must be good enugh that you actually want them and not just put rares with more stats in every slot
2 : the classes must still be playable without that game changing legendary for the people with no RNG-luck...
3 : Legendaries can not have too much of an stat disadvantage or people will again ignore them.

If those new affixes on legendaries are really that game changing, you dont need one of them on every slot. One leg with one game changing affix should be enugh. Rest of the slots can still be filled with the items with most stats as long as you have your game changer affix.

The way it was in d2. Rares have the potential to roll better stats than legendaries, but can not roll those gamechanger affixes.

This needs to be balanced really well though.

1 : those affixes must be good enugh that you actually want them and not just put rares with more stats in every slot
2 : the classes must still be playable without that game changing legendary for the people with no RNG-luck...
3 : Legendaries can not have too much of an stat disadvantage or people will again ignore them.

So we need d2 rares with d3-ros legendaries.

The only thing is that the legendaries, as they currently stand, are too valuable even if they all have "game changing" affixes. For instance, I would want a 4 piece zuni set for the everlasting fetishes, a legendary one hander for reduced CD on bbv and fetish army, and gloves and helm for minion damage. Those would simply be the smartest items to get for if you wanted to make a minion build on the WD. Now the other slots could hold rares, but that usually isn't the case. The rare would have to offer A LOT to make for, let's say, immunity to fire, or 20% resource with each health globe, or 25%dmg when moving or something of the sort.

In the end I think legendaries are good how they are in a sense. I enjoy them being so powerful, but they are too accessible at the same time. I think also the fact that the materials from rares or blue or whites are still essentially useless.

Idk, there are a lot of things they could do to help fix, we just have to wait and see what they choose!

P.S. It is such a relief to post in here and not JSP where the only thing anyone says is "Games shit"

There needs to be a balance between rares and legendaries. Rares = better maximum stats // legendaries = gameplay changers. If the most effective way to outfit a character is to combine a healthy combination of rares and legendaries that will be perfection.

If the top difficulties made it so that being completely outfitted in legendaries made it so your DPS suffered too drastically, despite having multiple unique legendaries gimmicks, you'd have to supplement some rares for damage and then make a decision about what gimmicks to sacrifice.

There needs to be a balance between rares and legendaries. Rares = better maximum stats // legendaries = gameplay changers. If the most effective way to outfit a character is to combine a healthy combination of rares and legendaries that will be perfection.

If the top difficulties made it so that being completely outfitted in legendaries made it so your DPS suffered too drastically, despite having multiple unique legendaries gimmicks, you'd have to supplement some rares for damage and then make a decision about what gimmicks to sacrifice.

They tried to do this in vanilla and it sucked. Granted Legendaries didn't have interesting bonuses either, but generally speaking Legendaries are more fun than Rares and there's nothing really wrong with everybody wearing them in every slot, provided there's a good variety of them. In order for Legendaries to be cool it's necessary that their bonuses be significantly better than an ordinary affix, and that means by definition that Rares are not going to be as good.

Hopefully they can come up with something more interesting for Rares than just simple salvage junk though. Might be cool if enchanting required you to find a Rare with the affix you want or something like that.

The fact that the legendaries currently have bad bonuses in vanilla is exactly the problem with the current system. If the bonuses are worthwhile then you have to actively choose between a maximized increased in stat boosts from rares (DPS/EHP) or a mild stat increase with some utility (legendaries). It creates an interesting dynamic in choice making that makes all the difference if done properly.

I guess I didn't mean to suggest that equipping an entire set of legendaries should automatically be insufficient. I just meant in a way that it wasn't the obvious mandatory choice for peak output. The utilities shouldn't completely dwarf the desire to equip some rares for stats alongside the legendaries.

Imagine if, say, amulets could roll great in RoS, how are you going to tell what's an amulet? Pick up every yellow that drops and sort them in town? Mouse over everything to see what it is? You can't tell what anything is from the name alone, and people would get mighty upset if they're missing out on potentially amazing items because the hassle of checking every single yellow drop is too much of a time sink to really bother with.

The fact that the legendaries currently have bad bonuses in vanilla is exactly the problem with the current system. If the bonuses are worthwhile then you have to actively choose between a maximized increased in stat boosts from rares (DPS/EHP) or a mild stat increase with some utility (legendaries). It creates an interesting dynamic in choice making that makes all the difference if done properly.

I guess I didn't mean to suggest that equipping an entire set of legendaries should automatically be insufficient. I just meant in a way that it wasn't the obvious mandatory choice for peak output. The utilities shouldn't completely dwarf the desire to equip some rares for stats alongside the legendaries.

I guess my question is, is there really anyone who would prefer to be equipping bland Rares with great stats rather than Legendaries with unique bonuses? Why is that an appealing decision? I don't want to be in a position where I have to think "man that Legendary bonus is so cool... But not cool enough to be worth losing 15% of my DPS." Screw that, I want to be deciding WHICH cool bonus I can have, not whether or not I get one at all.

This is an important topic to me as well. I just mentioned in another thread how I think Legendaries should have negative affixes to go along with their "legendary" ones. They should have great power for the right build, but equipping too many of them might not be the best choice. Maybe rares could fill the slots that don't fit the build.Example thoughts:

I guess my question is, is there really anyone who would prefer to be equipping bland Rares with great stats rather than Legendaries with unique bonuses? Why is that an appealing decision? I don't want to be in a position where I have to think "man that Legendary bonus is so cool... But not cool enough to be worth losing 15% of my DPS." Screw that, I want to be deciding WHICH cool bonus I can have, not whether or not I get one at all.

Yeah... I don't get it either.

Besides, if rares had a purpose, we'd be back to the "TRADERS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE" shitstorm. And then rares would be BoA too... and blah blah fucking blah.

I may be totally wrong, but I thought the way it was right now was that rares can roll 6 affixes, whereas legendaries have 5, and one of them is uber? Perhaps that is totally wrong but that was my very quick basic impression when watching some streams.

Things like trifecta rings I think will still have a place in the game, and a rare weapon with an awesome damage roll/socket/CB/CD/main stat will probably be competitive still.

The fact that the legendaries currently have bad bonuses in vanilla is exactly the problem with the current system. If the bonuses are worthwhile then you have to actively choose between a maximized increased in stat boosts from rares (DPS/EHP) or a mild stat increase with some utility (legendaries). It creates an interesting dynamic in choice making that makes all the difference if done properly.

I guess I didn't mean to suggest that equipping an entire set of legendaries should automatically be insufficient. I just meant in a way that it wasn't the obvious mandatory choice for peak output. The utilities shouldn't completely dwarf the desire to equip some rares for stats alongside the legendaries.

I guess my question is, is there really anyone who would prefer to be equipping bland Rares with great stats rather than Legendaries with unique bonuses? Why is that an appealing decision? I don't want to be in a position where I have to think "man that Legendary bonus is so cool... But not cool enough to be worth losing 15% of my DPS." Screw that, I want to be deciding WHICH cool bonus I can have, not whether or not I get one at all.

You have 13 slots my friend, you don't need 13 bonuses. The key is to balance how many bonuses you want vs. how much stats you want to find a sweet spot for the build you are going for.

I guess my question is, is there really anyone who would prefer to be equipping bland Rares with great stats rather than Legendaries with unique bonuses? Why is that an appealing decision? I don't want to be in a position where I have to think "man that Legendary bonus is so cool... But not cool enough to be worth losing 15% of my DPS." Screw that, I want to be deciding WHICH cool bonus I can have, not whether or not I get one at all.

Yeah... I don't get it either.

Besides, if rares had a purpose, we'd be back to the "TRADERS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE" shitstorm. And then rares would be BoA too... and blah blah fucking blah.

For me personally, it's okay for traders to have SOME advantage. I think what people are tired of is traders having ALL the advantage. I'm mostly talking about traders and pay-to-win players who are so wealthy that nothing is out of reach for them in that they can be instantly decked out in any item of their choosing, and they don't even have to play the game proper. Sadly, I am actually one of these players in the current state of the game. I'm by no means the most powerful, but if the game was more fun in its current state I might keep trading my way to the top as I have already done to some extent.

Well, keeping legendaries out of the trading arena makes those items esteemed and not instantly accessible to those who play the least yet spend the most. Legendaries have to actually be worked for by playing the game explicitly, and that gives those who care about item reverence something to feel good about. Maybe rares will still be very useful, and can be traded and easily acquired, but they don't have the title of "legendary" so they shouldn't have to fit that mold necessarily; and as long as legendaries do fit that mold it creates that niche that is not tainted by players who circumvent actually playing the game to acquire items that are supposed to hold a higher regard. A Diablo 3 where I would be forced to find the legendaries I want, yet could trade for useful rares to complement the legendaries that supplement the build I am using would still be a Diablo 3 I would enjoy. In my mind, it doesn't go hand in hand that if an item is useful it should automatically be bind on account, it's just solely that legendaries have a responsibility to feel legendary in and of their own name and that's what solely drives my like for BoA on them.